Can Homosexuality Be Proved Wrong From Natural Law

[larkin31]

If you happen to prefer chocolate over vanila, but are extremely allergic to chocolate, what do you do? You refrain from chocolate. If you don’t have the will power to do so, you will die. The parallel exist for sin. You may prefer sin, but to indulge in it is to die.

well, this wasn’t our present point. Are you conceding the point on homosexuality having complex causes, including likely genetic ones, that at times cannot be changed? That was the gist of the discussion for the last page. And that “therapy” does not always work? (no professional consensus on its efficacy)

 

[davidv]

well, this wasn’t our present point. Are you conceding the point on homosexuality having complex causes, including likely genetic ones, that at times cannot be changed? That was the gist of the discussion for the last page. And that “therapy” does not always work? (no professional consensus on its efficacy)

As in the case of chocolate allergy, its cause is of no concern in context of dealing with its effect. Same will SSA, regardless of it cause, to act on it is to invite a severe “allergic reaction” and potentially spiritual death.

And whether there is a therapy or not is not material to avoiding sin. If a therapy is effective, this would make it easy to avoid the sin.

 

[larkin31]

As in the case of chocolate allergy, its cause is of no concern in context of dealing with its effect. Same will SSA, regardless of it cause, to act on it is to invite a severe “allergic reaction” and potentially spiritual death.

And whether there is a therapy or not is not material to avoiding sin. If a therapy is effective, this would make it easy to avoid the sin.

You’re not responding to the material posted in the current discussion. The “cause” of allergies of course is VERY important in all those persons trying to find ways to “minister” to folks and perhaps treat the condition. We know very well what causes allergic reactions, and the cause and response mechanisms are extremely important in treatment. If ALL you are interested in is avoidance (like a parent in a kitchen), then of course you will have no higher intellectual interest in other palliative therapies, and, you will be likely to suffer much more greatly upon accidental exposure. Of course, then you can also be free to reject medical therapies because, after all, you do not really care about that approach.

 

[davidv]

You’re not responding to the material posted in the current discussion. The “cause” of allergies of course is VERY important in all those persons trying to find ways to “minister” to folks and perhaps treat the condition. We know very well what causes allergic reactions, and the cause and response mechanisms are extremely important in treatment. If ALL you are interested in is avoidance (like a parent in a kitchen), then of course you will have no higher intellectual interest in other palliative therapies, and, you will be likely to suffer much more greatly upon accidental exposure. Of course, then you can also be free to reject medical therapies because, after all, you do not really care about that approach.

I was responding to a point In post 1312 that was trying to equate a taste preference to SSA.

You may stop putting words in my mouth now. And ad hominems only diminish the one using them.

 

[larkin31]

I was responding to a point In post 1312 that was trying to equate a taste preference to SSA.

You may stop putting words in my mouth now. And ad hominems only diminish the one using them.

ok

fair enough–I missed the reference cuz the thread had moved along

but you also did answer to me, with the allergy analogy, and I followed up on that. You said, in summary, that you did not care about the cause. I was critical of that dismissal of the “cause” of both allergies and of homosexuality. If you actually DO care about the cause of homosexuality, you were/are certainly free to change your statement. The RCC does care about the research into cause and does read it and comment on it. That they are recognizing the difficulty (and psychological trauma) of trying to change this orientation through therapy is in part a reaction to continuing studies on causal factors and therapy. At least they read the information and comment on it beyond stating, “We don’t care.”

 

[davidv]

ok

fair enough–I missed the reference cuz the thread had moved along

but you also did answer to me, with the allergy analogy, and I followed up on that. You said, in summary, that you did not care about the cause. I was critical of that dismissal of the “cause” of both allergies and of homosexuality. If you actually DO care about the cause of homosexuality, you were/are certainly free to change your statement. The RCC does care about the research into cause and does read it and comment on it. That they are recognizing the difficulty (and psychological trauma) of trying to change this orientation through therapy is in part a reaction to continuing studies on causal factors and therapy. At least they read the information and comment on it beyond stating, “We don’t care.”

Where did I say I didn’t care?

 

[Leela]

If you happen to prefer chocolate over vanila, but are extremely allergic to chocolate, what do you do? You refrain from chocolate. If you don’t have the will power to do so, you will die. The parallel exist for sin. You may prefer sin, but to indulge in it is to die.

The presence or absence of a biological determining factor is irrelevant to the issue, and there is no question that it is possible for a homosexual to obtain from sexual relations. I dot know why you would bother pointing that out. The question is still, why ought homosexuals abstain from sexual relations? Just because you say it is a sin doesn’t make it so.

And whether or not you think they are endangering their souls is a separate question from whether or not you think the government ought to pass laws to prevent it. I don’t think the government should make laws based on people’s various private otherworldly visions. The government ought only concern itself with secular justifications (this world) in its law-making. That is what the establishment clause is about. You can make your decisions about the care of your immortal soul and I can make mine. Such concerns have no place in the legal system.

Best,
Leela

 

[Abu]

In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.The following article was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune, on May 27th, 2001.
Citing the failure of his research, Hamer further writes, “The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants.” What’s more interesting is that when Hamer’s study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice concluded. “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer’s et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28.”

Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. “INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior. Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.”

Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states, “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. *t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain.”

**Our Perception of Science Alters Politics **
LeVay made a interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, “…people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”

The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual. Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where “temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges.” Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined.*

 

[Soulewolf]

I’d like to know if advocates for the right for homosexuals to marry believe that such a right should not only exist, but so also should the right for members of the same family to marry each other if they are so disposed.

In my own opinion, it is not the right of the government to enforce “blue laws”. The point of a government is to protect the people and uphold order. Such things like homosexuals getting married or incestuous relationships (ones that arent dysfunctional of course) do not effect the overall health of a society, nor are they generally detrimental to the overall functionality of the individual. you could easily twist that philosophically, but that has no utility in the real world. thus government should have no say.

actions of a sexual nature between two consenting adults are theirs to have, and if those actions disgust you or me (and some of them really do >_>) then you are fully within your right not to participate in them. However it is outside of your rights to force such morality on those who disagree with your paradigm.

legal marriage is not a religious binding. it is strictly the government viewing two individuals as a single entity for taxation purposes.

If you want the definition of the word “marriage” to remain the way it was under religious contexts, then appeal to the government to change the wording of the legal binding, and take the word back for yourselves. Dont force religious views on what is supposed to be a non religious organization. That is the only true way any country can have “freedom of religion”.

 

[Soulewolf]

all this “gay gene” stuff is really non productive.

the highest probable cause for homosexual attraction is an extra hormonal wash when the brain is formed during pregnancy. that is, the brain is hard wired to accept and process certain pheromones differently.

Honestly, this is probably due to the chemicals ingested through routine living such as fluoride, preservatives, what have you.

another, less probable cause might be a mothers genetic disposition for this extra hormone wash.

one way or the other, homosexuality is hard wired into the brain and is very much not a choice.

 

[Abu]

Soulewolf
due to the chemicals ingested through routine living such as fluoride, preservatives, what have you. hormone wash….one way or the other, homosexuality is hard wired into the brain and is very much not a choice.

As the perversity and unnaturalness of homosexual activity was condemned by St Paul, and the pagan philosophers, how fatuous can you get in infiltrating modernity? Much more like hogwash than “hormone wash”. Clutching at straws won’t help anyone.

 

[Soulewolf]

As the perversity and unnaturalness of homosexual activity was condemned by St Paul, and the pagan philosophers, how fatuous can you get in infiltrating modernity? Much more like hogwash than “hormone wash”. Clutching at straws won’t help anyone.

im sorry, but this is the opinion of the majority of researchers. it seems like you are the one clutching at straws.

for your learning pleasure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

and before you go discrediting the argument because it is wikipedia, there is a very large list of resources referenced outside of wikipedia which you are more than welcome to check out as well.

the reason i introduced the chemical idea is because there is an obvious rise in homosexuality in the modern day compared to older civilizations. If you look at the bible as historically accurate, regular homosexual activity is constrained to certain groups of people such as in sodom and gomorrah. The idea that a chemical introduced to them through their water systems from the ground, which spread through livestock is far from far fetched (lol). Especially if there was volcanic activity nearby.

 

[larkin31]

Where did I say I didn’t care?

In post #1316 you wrote that “the cause is of no concern” in dealing with its effect. Moreover, in two straight exchanges–and now in a third as well–you do not respond in any direct way to my points about looking into and understanding the research into possible factors influencing homosexuality. If you have either care or “concern” for these matters, I just figure it would have been demonstrated by now.

 

[larkin31]

As the perversity and unnaturalness of homosexual activity was condemned by St Paul, and the pagan philosophers, how fatuous can you get in infiltrating modernity? Much more like hogwash than “hormone wash”. Clutching at straws won’t help anyone.

There was no research in Paul’s day into the biological factors influencing human sexuality. He couldn’t have known any of this.

 

[inocente]

The attached was approved by Pope John Paul II with Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect, and states the case against homosexual marriage.

Section III gives the non-religious case, including natural law. There are no arguments about genetics, therapy, chemicals in the water or slippery slopes so presumably they were not thought convincing.

Even so, some of the arguments could be better expressed. Allowing two homosexuals to publically commit to honoring and loving each other all the days of their lives is said to harm society, presumably more than the state endorsing promiscuity. Allowing adoption “would actually mean doing violence to these children” while not mentioning that a single parent in an embittered divorce may just be worse.

The religious case is interesting by the verses it omits, which include anything to do with Sodom and Gomorrah.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*There was no research in Paul’s day into the biological factors influencing human sexuality. He couldn’t have known any of this. *

Let’s put Paul aside, because his authority is religious.

You still haven’t dealt with Plato, who certainly was not Jewish or Christian.

If homosexual actions were not against the natural law, why would Plato find them shameful?

 

[larkin31]

If homosexual actions were not against the natural law, why would Plato find them shameful?

I don’t know. Most people don’t like homosexuality, then and now. If you know, then tell us. Why is/was Plato and expert on this topic? Why should we care at all what someone, 400 years BCE, had to say about homosexuality and gay marriage today? Especially when Plato even advocated that the government should remove children from their parents to be raised. I read Plato with a large grain of ancient-outlook salt.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Why is/was Plato and expert on this topic? Why should we care at all what someone, 400 years BCE, had to say about homosexuality and gay marriage today?

Because Plato lived in a time when gay sex was rampant, like our own. Because Plato is as far as anyone can get from Biblical injunctions. Because Plato probably reflected the general common sense judgment of his time against the unnatural aspects of homosexual sex. Because Plato did not have to be what you call an “expert” to have an opinion. Neither do the rest of us have to be experts, whatever that means.

 

[inocente]

If homosexual actions were not against the natural law, why would Plato find them shameful?

I’m a bit confused here, was Plato for or against

“In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex, and takes a much harsher line than he does in the Symposium or the Phraedrus. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural” (636c).”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

“Homosexuality,” Plato wrote, “is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.”
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html

“This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion.”
newstatesman.com/199908230009

 

[Charlemagne_II]

innocente
*
I’m a bit confused here, was Plato for or against?*

Laws 8.836c-e, in which Plato discusses what laws should regulate sexual conduct. It’s plain that Plato sees a historical decline in morals since the time of Laius.

“Suppose you follow nature’s rule and establish the law that was in force before the time of Laius. You’d argue that one may have sexual intercourse with a women but not with men or boys. As evidence for your view, you’d point to the animal world, where (you’d argue) the males do not have sexual relations with each other, because such a thing is unnatural. But in Crete and Sparta your argument would not go down well, and you’d probably persuade nobody. However, another argument is that such practices are incompatible with what in our view should be the constant aim of the legislator - that is, we’re always asking, ‘which of our regulations encourages virtue, and which does not?’ Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is.”

Plato, Laws [636c] And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Cretans of concocting the story about Ganymede.